marchofwarfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:United Republic/@comment-11854534-20130710012044/@comment-75.36.164.85-20131006042343
@Gratutious Lurking My apologies, but this makes me headdesk. Hard. Partially because I was planning to make a unit dealing with this matter (South African Kommandoes for the African Warlords), but also because it makes no damn sense. Especially in light of the US's apparently close-to-historical development. "As far as politics are concerned, in regards to our alternate reality, I daresay that Great Britian wasn't the best when it came to colony matters." There is a difference between "wasn't the best when it came to colony matters" and "HurHurHur Wesa Gonna Grab a Villian Ball. BECAUSE! The Mods have decided Imperal Germany should be the template for the EA, and everybody has to be as bad as they were! nevermindthefactthatthekaiserreichdependedextensivelyoncivilianmilitiasinmostofitscolonies...." It doesn't make sense. "To put it in perspective, there was weapon bans in place for Latin America (as hinted in the Hunter bio), meaning they had to rely on aging, repurposed military gear and hand-me-down rifles of unknown power to defend themselves from still-hostile natives and the various monsters the jungle bred." Ok, this is bad on a number of levels. 1. Again, the UK never had many colonies on the South American mainland, and those they had (like Guyana) were well away from any major native troubles. With those that existed being stomped on by regular British troops and well-armed colonists. Could you work in for vaster British colonies? Sure. But it needed more buildup. 2. This is going well against the basic logic of colonialism in and of itself. Where not only was weapon usage *not* strongly banned, it was even encouraged. Especially in the face of colonial rivals and still hostile natives! As far back as Elizabeth I, English colonies often required an Arquebus and a set amount of ammo be brought by *each and every colonist.* Which- speaking as an American and a historian- just gets emphasized by the fact that even after it largely bit them in the rear (what with trying to impose a military occupation on one's own heavily armed citizenry), they still saw it as essential (as shown by the frontier settlements in Canada). Gun restricitons only game in weeeellllll after things settled down and there were no hostile natives to take advantage of it (because they were either assimilated, exiled, or dead). The fact that the US has still developed roughly like it did IOTL shows that things haven't changed that drasically up North, so why this random change? 3. Most of the "still hostile tribes" did not make it into the age of the rifle. Historically, the Portuguese and Spanish were conducting massive slaving raids in the interior dedicated to feeding a constant supply to the plantations in Brazil and to pacify the interior. By the dawn of the 18th century, native resistance was negligable, and by the dawn of the 19th and independence most of the local natives were so subdued the Spanish/Portuguese Crown Loyalists recruited most of them. Even if we assume the British had a far larger role, I don't see how things could play out dramatically differently. By the time abolition was being debating it would be far too late for native resistance. And even if they did, arms restrictions would probably not have been imposed. 4. These laws were neigh impossible to enforce anyway with the situation of the time. Hence why the British colonial authorities were unable to prevent various Americans from deciding that things like the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (a treaty notably about colonial territory limits, not gun ownership) were stupid and moving West in violation of it anyway. The idea that they could somehow assert even more dominant role in tracking down Gomez de Grenville the friendly local military smuggler across far more hostile terriin does not hold water. I agree that it is wrong to pick apart every single factual inaccuracy because that is missing the point of March of War. But the issue I have with this is not that it's factually inaccurate, it's just that it makes no sense. You don't disarm people regularly dealing with hostile forces *on your own colonial soil.* If anything, you do the opposite. Which is part of what I was going to incorporate with the original Boer Kommandoes and why the British allowed them to keep their weapons and supplies (at great eventual cost to themselves). And why the African Warlords are not interested in disarming the Kommandoes (swelled by Boer, Anglo, Indian, Portuguese, German, Belgian, and other refugees who were left behind when the colonial powers retreated) when they are so valuable to them. "I am assuming, due to the fact Canada was a 'civil' nation, that it would be under high taxation and regulation by the Crown in our alt universe, to further the gains for Brittish armor devisions. The increased tension to the east via the Union's forming and the forging of the European Alliance means they would have a excuse to side with the Alliance, especially if diplomaticly they'd be treated better." This is not such a problem for our purposes, given how some Canadians took issue with their commitments in WWI and WWII. However, some more building would be useful.